1. Presentation at Regional Hub of Civil Service Workshop Astana, Kazakhstan October 2013

2. Performance Management

3.  Performance Management & Development System in place since 2000  Agreed with Staff associations  In 2005 integrated with increments, promotions and higher pay scales  5 point rating scale

4.  Government Programme  3 year Strategic Statements for each Ministry, Office or Agency  Annual Business Plans  Divisional Plans  Individual role profiles  Individual goals and objectives

5.  Planning Meeting where objectives are set and agreed  Interim Review at mid-year where progress and issues are discussed  Review at year end

6.  Objectives, actions, tasks and timelines are outlined  Training & development plan for 12 months outlined  Self assessment by employee at mid year and at year end  Assessment by supervisor and rating given  Signed off by second supervisor

7.  Recently formalised within the process to facilitate upward feedback where employee has the opportunity to comment on the support received from supervisor  Many managers are uncomfortable with giving feedback, will take time.

8. 1 2 3 4 5

10.  Great opportunity for achieving clarity around role and objectives  Opportunity to identify blockages or issues that need to be addressed  Opportunity to identify training needs

11. Points

12.  People at the top must show leadership, support the process and should participate  Importance of training for all involved  Keep documentation simple  Completing paperwork and ticking boxes can become the focus, seen as additional task

13.  Look at “motivating for performance” rather than performance management (OECD)  Open and frank dialogue is key to success  Process should not inhibit authentic dialogue  Need for regular and ongoing dialogue between supervisor and employee

14.  Tendency to over specify formal training & development solutions  New approach being taken to rating system  Calibration across grades within organisation to ensure more even and more realistic distribution of ratings

16.  85.1% compliance across Ministries  Concern about ratings for 2012: 5 Outstanding (6.4%) 4 Exceeds Expectations (53.1%) 3 Fully Acceptable (39.6%) 2 Needs Improvement (0.8%) 1 Unacceptable (0.1%)

18.  Annual Output Statements  Performance Indicators  Customer Surveys  Customer/Citizen Panels  Value for Money Audits

19.  Clarity of my role, objectives, priorities and timelines  Feedback on how well or otherwise that I am doing  Supports or training available to help me to improve